There seems to be a lot of comments here that think Scientific American (and the media in general) should strive to be nonpartisan and treat both parties equall

There seems to be a lot of comments here that think Scientific American (and the media in general) should strive to be nonpartisan and treat both parties equally. For those that think that way, I would like to know how you think we should handle a scenario where one political party is legitimately acting in a non-equal, extreme manner. Consider: - Candidate A lies 95% of the time. - Candidate B lies 5% of the time. For the media to objectively/truthfully call out candidate A would be to act, inherently in a partisan, unequal manner. There's no way to both accurately report the difference between candidates A and B while also pursuing moderation and consensus. This is essentially the dilemma faced by the media, and is why we're in this situation where despite the fact there is overwhelming evidence that the majority of what Trump says is a lie[1] - the media treat it as the truth, which is an enormous advantage to Trump (candidate A). A democratic system that relies on informed voters selecting their political representation breaks down when one candidate is allowed misinform voters, at will, by the media. This is the same sort of situation with climate change, where the outlier scientific view (climate change denial) is given equal weight and validity in the media. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Dona...